California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed Senate Bill 1174, which prohibits local governments from enacting or enforcing identification requirements for voting. The measure was authored by state Sen. David Min, Irvine Democrat, now running for Congress in California’s 47th district. Min’s own background raises questions about the legality and morality of bills making voter identification illegal. Min earned a JD at Harvard, served as an enforcement attorney with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and taught law at the UC Irvine School of Law for eight years. Min is a member of the bar in New York State and the District of Columbia, and in February 2022 he passed the California bar exam. That exam has stringent requirements, including a moral character test. Those taking the test must include fingerprints from a Live Scan Service form completed within the last 90 days. So, to practice law in California, Harvard law alum Dave Min submitted to a mandatory identification check and moral fitness test. Contrast the bar exam with the dynamics of voting. An election makes voters public officials for one day. Voters can decide who becomes president and vice president of the United States, a matter of some importance.  Voters can elect members of Congress who will make the laws, and approve or reject various ballot measures that have direct bearing on taxpayers. Min wants voters to be exempt from identification measures, and bans local governments from imposing them. That stands at odds from some of Min’s own materials. For example, contributors to Min’s congressional campaign must certify, “I am a U.S. citizen or lawfully admitted permanent resident (i.e., green card holder).” As the Harvard law alum must know, by law U.S. citizenship is a requirement for voting, yet the senator and candidate wants to bar identification of voters. Min’s legislation contends that “voter identification laws place the onus on the voter to prove their identity and right to vote, even after voters have taken the necessary steps to prove their identity and right to vote through the voter registration process.” As the Orange County Democrat should know, this is not true in the Golden State. California automatically registers illegals to vote when they get their driver’s license at the DMV. State officials won’t say how many illegals violated the law by voting in 2016, 2018, 2020, or in the 2021 recall election for Gavin Newsom, who signed Min’s bill. State attorney general Rob Bonta had already filed a lawsuit against Huntington Beach, the Orange County city that sought to require voter identification. Bonta contends that ID requirements could make it harder for poor, non-white, young, elderly and disabled voters to cast ballots. Legitimate citizens and legal immigrants have room for reasonable doubt. All Californians are required to produce identification to board airplanes, apply for a home loan, purchase a firearm, purchase whiskey, become an attorney, and so forth. Californians might think a Harvard law alum, SEC enforcement attorney and law professor would know that. Californians also have to wonder about their attorney general, a Yale law alum As a member of the California Assembly, Bonta was the prime mover of Assembly Bill 2088, the California Wealth Tax, which if passed would have slapped a 0.4 percent tax on the portion of a taxpayer’s net worth that exceeded $30 million. AB-2088 would also have taxed former Californians 90 percent of their in-state levy in the first year after they left the state and 80 percent in the second year, phasing out over a decade. A Yale law alum should know that a state can’t tax non-residents, and that non-citizens can’t vote. In light of Bonta, Min, and Newsom, legitimate citizens and legal immigrants might imagine this scenario. Congress is in session and an unelected imposter poses as a House member and votes to approve an increase in taxes and government spending. That would not be acceptable, but illegal voters essentially pull off the same trick. Anybody who endorses non-citizen voting, regardless of party affiliation or ideological profile, forfeits any claim to support the rule of law, the basis of a free and democratic society. Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. The post California’s Identity Problem appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Vice President Kamala Harris occasionally attends a Baptist church, but she still has a problem with Christians. So does her boss. Biden attends Mass regularly, but his rejection of Catholic moral teachings — on abortion, marriage, the family, and sexuality — makes practicing Catholics wonder about his bona fides.  When Harris was California’s attorney general, she persecuted pro-life activist David Daleiden. He used undercover videos to expose how abortion operatives harvest and sell aborted fetal organs. She authorized her office to raid his home — they seized his camera equipment and copies of revealing videos that implicated many of those who work in the abortion industry. In her role as California attorney general, she sought to cripple crisis pregnancy centers through draconian regulations. Specifically, she supported a bill that would force these centers to inform clients where they could obtain an abortion. She was ultimately sued and lost before the Supreme Court three years later. In February 2020, then-Sen. Harris voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, a bill that would “prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.” That’s called infanticide. Also while in the Senate, Harris co-sponsored the Do No Harm Act and the Equality Act. Both bills would have weakened, or nullified, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, thus mandating that Catholic doctors and hospitals perform abortions and “sex-reassignment” surgeries. Harris’ passion for abortion rights — she has never found a type she couldn’t justify — impels her to attack Catholic candidates for the federal bench. She did so most famously in late 2018 when she questioned Brian C. Buescher about his suitability to be a federal district judge. His membership in the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, raised a red flag for her. Her question revealed her real target — the Catholic Church. She asked: “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?” Essentially, she was asking if someone who accepts the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion — that child abuse begins in the womb — should be allowed to sit on the federal bench. She knows the Constitution bars a religious test to hold public office. This was her end run around it.  Harris was also upset that the Knights prohibit female membership. But several female religious groups ban men — the Jewish women’s group Hadassah and the Catholic Daughters of the Americas restrict membership to women. For that matter, so does the secular League of Women Voters. None of those organizations are a problem for Harris. Just Catholic fraternal ones.  Harris refused to attend the Al Smith Dinner, letting Catholics know what she thinks about them. However, she never misses a Hollywood dinner. Those are her ideological next of kin — not Catholics. When a couple of Christian young people shouted “Christ is King” at a recent Wisconsin rally, Harris could have ignored them. After all, whenever left-wing pro-Hamas protesters shout her down, she simply says that she has the right to speak. But she couldn’t help scolding the Christians by saying, “You guys are at the wrong rally.” She was right about that — Christians are not welcome at her events. Harris is losing to Trump 52–47 among Catholics. This was before she snubbed New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan by blowing off the Al Smith Dinner and before she mocked Christian students.  No one truly believes that Trump is a deeply religious man. He admits as much. But his policies are clearly religion-friendly. The same is not true for Harris. She is wedded to the Biden–Harris record. A record that pales in significance to what Trump accomplished for religious freedom during his administration. In fact, the gulf between the two is so broad that there really isn’t a comparison. READ MORE from Bill Donohue: The Politics of Comedy Reassessing Elite Claims This Columbus Day Kamala Smart to Skip Al Smith Dinner The post Harris Has a Problem With Christians appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

On November 17, 2023, Democrat New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed into law the Plain Language bill —a bill that allows a summary of a proposed amendment be put on the ballot instead of the full amendment. Also, the summary must be written at an eighth grade reading level or lower. This election will be the first to implement the summary rule. New York voters will be asked to vote “Yes” or “No” on Proposal Number One — but only the summary of Part A will be printed on the ballot. If the voter has been paying only casual attention, they may think that they are protecting abortion rights. The actual legal language of Prop. 1 does not even include words specifically about abortion. Its protections go far beyond codifying abortion protections in the state constitution. It will upend state law and constitutional protections for equal rights currently in place and destroy the traditionally neutral standards of American law that safeguard other freedoms. Many voters will be voting blind. The Prop. 1 journey began in July 2022 when Hochul called a special session of the state legislature to protect abortion rights. The urgency was necessitated by the Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in June that overturned Roe v. Wade. To further emphasize how grave the New York Democrats viewed the Dobbs decision, both Democrat-controlled chambers voted on the same day to approve the proposed amendment. This rush presented the first hurdle for Prop. 1 to overcome. The method by which Prop. 1 was passed by the state legislature is unconstitutional, according to civil rights attorney and Brownstone Institute fellow Bobbie Anne Cox. Cox initially fought Prop. 1 in court and won. She later lost on appeal — in the same court that overturned her previous win against the COVID-inspired quarantine executive order that allowed state health officials to send New Yorkers to “quarantine camps” without due process or diagnosis of a communicable disease. As Cox’s lawsuit pointed out, by calling for state legislators to vote on the proposed amendment immediately after it was first introduced, Hochul violated the law. In order for amendments to be placed on the New York ballot, they are required to be introduced in both chambers of the state legislature, then reviewed by the state attorney general within twenty days of introduction, and then they can be voted on and approved by the state legislature to be placed on the ballot. However, in this case, New York Attorney Gen. Letitia James gave her opinion on July 6 — that is five days after the proposed amendment was already voted on by legislators and approved for placement on the ballot. Cox also raised concerns about the timing of the vote — Hochul called for a vote on the Friday before the Fourth of July weekend. Additionally, the proposal was not placed on the ballot in 2023, as would be the normal course of events. Instead, it is placed on this year’s ballot — a presidential election year that typically sees higher voter turnout and is more focused on national issues than state ballot initiatives. (LISTEN FOR MORE: The Spectator P.M. Ep. 86: Liberals Seek to Enshrine Wokeness in New York’s Constitution) What will New York voters see on the ballot? This November, New Yorkers will find on their ballots, Proposal Number One, in the following new summarized format: Amendment to Protect Against Unequal Treatment This proposal would protect against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity and pregnancy and against unequal treatment based on reproductive healthcare and autonomy. A “YES” vote puts these protections in the New York State Constitution. A “NO” vote leaves these protections out of the New York State Constitution. The State Board of Elections website does, however, post the full amendment, with new language underlined and deleted language in brackets. It reads: A. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. No person shall, because of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, creed [or], religion, or sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy, be subjected to any discrimination in [his or her] their civil rights by any other person or by any firm, corporation, or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state, pursuant to law. Is Prop. 1 needed to protect access to abortions? Notably, although pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes are included, there is no mention of abortion. Cam Macdonald, an adjunct fellow at the Empire Center, writes that the proposal “does not add any new rights or protect any existing rights in the state Constitution … any change to current abortion rights in New York would require another step — a law passed by the Legislature or a Court of Appeals ruling striking down the state’s existing law.” Macdonald contrasts New York’s Prop. 1 with abortion amendments already passed in Michigan and Ohio in response to the Dobbs decision. These basically restore the “reproductive freedoms” of Roe v. Wade in their states. However, both states provide for laws restricting abortion after fetal viability — with the exception of a medical opinion pertaining to the life or health of the mother. However, through the state’s 2019 Reproductive Health Act, New York has already adopted and codified even more expansive abortion allowances than Roe v. Wade permitted. As a result, Macdonald says, “[T]here are no practical limitations on abortion in New York if a health care practitioner wants to perform the procedure.” The Dobbs decision already does not impact abortion rights in New York up to 24 weeks from the beginning of pregnancy. Macdonald goes on to state that, if Prop. 1 is approved, “a successful challenge based on reproductive autonomy to the existing 24 week milestone could leave New York with no restrictions on abortion on its books.” Yet, the proposal is being sold by New York Democrats as a way to “Protect Abortion & Our Freedoms” — at least according to their lawn signs. Acting as an activist instead of a chief legal officer, Attorney Gen. James penned a USA Today op-ed that claimed Prop. 1 — or what she calls the Equal Rights Act — was intended to protect against “anti-choice forces … already at work in New York.” She spoke at a September 28 rally in Yonkers encouraging voters to approve the ballot measure. Meanwhile, Gov. Hochul continues to campaign for abortion rights, saying recently that it would “enshrine abortion rights in our state Constitution, protecting them from ultra-conservative state legislators, members of Congress, justices, and presidential hopefuls who want to dismantle those freedoms.” New Protected Categories If Prop. 1 is approved in November, there will be 12 new protected classes: ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, reproductive healthcare, and reproductive autonomy. Cox and other opponents of Prop. 1 note that the 12 new categories will likely interfere with expansive protections already in place for New Yorkers on the basis of race, color, creed, or religion — protections that have been in place since 1938 and amended in 2001 with gender-neutral language. Cox warns that the the language in the unnecessary amendment is so broad it opens the door to other severe consequences. For example, the inclusion of “age” in the protected classes may result in the end of statutory rape laws. Or, the voting age could be abolished based on the claim that the current law requiring voters to be at least 18 years old is discriminatory. Ending alleged “age” discrimination could also allow minors to purchase alcohol and cannabis products, while threatening senior discounts, senior housing, and laws against elder abuse. Currently a bill in Committee at both chambers (Senate Bill S8352, Assembly Bill A6761) calls for allowing children to make their own medical decisions. However, adopting Prop. 1 in November would bypass the bill and give children the constitutional right to make their own medical decisions under the “gender identity” or “gender expression” protected categories. According to Macdonald, the New York State Education Department, in their 2023 Legal Update and Best Practices entitled “Creating a Safe, Supportive, and Affirming School Environment for Transgender and Gender Expansive Students,” already “recommends schools use a Gender Support Plan, which can be ‘used to help schools create a shared understanding among students, school staff and parents/guardians (only with student permission), about the ways in which the student’s authentic gender will be recognized and supported at school.’” Michele Sterlace-Accorsi, an attorney and consultant with the Coalition to Protect Kids, maintains that Prop. 1 “deprive[s] parents of authority to make life-altering decisions for their children.” This includes transgender medical interventions. Her group and others call Prop. 1 the “Parent Replacement Act.” Additionally, under the Prop. 1 “gender identity” protected class, boys and men could compete with girls and women in school sports and share locker rooms and restroom spaces. Currently in Nevada, which passed a similarly worded amendment, there are problems with males wanting to participate in female sports Cox also warns that the inclusion of “national origin” as a protected class could have ramifications on future elections because it prohibits discrimination by the state. “National origin” could be interpreted to apply to foreigners or non-citizens and illegal immigrants and grant them voting rights and access to state services. Overall, Prop.1 has further reaching consequences than just “enshrining abortion protections.” It would threaten free speech, religious freedom, and parental rights. The Missing Part B Cornell University law professor William Jacobson, who is working against the Prop. 1 through his Equal Protection Project, sees even greater danger from Part B — which does not appear on the ballot in any form — because it would fundamentally change the law. In April, Jacobson, reproduced the language of Part B and bolded the especially concerning part: Nothing in this section shall invalidate or prevent the adoption of any law, regulations, program, or practice that is designed to prevent or dismantle discrimination on the basis of a characteristic listed in this section, nor shall any characteristic listed in this section be interpreted to interfere with, limit, or deny the civil rights of any person based upon any other characteristic identified in this section. Jacobson cautioned that Part B would have a “possibly disastrous impact on the cause of nondiscrimination, as already embodied in the NY State Constitution … and numerous state and local laws.” Furthermore, he says, “It would create a loophole allowing persons engaging in objectively discriminatory programs and practices to claim that the motivation was to ‘dismantle discrimination.’” Jacobson warns that, “If adopted, Prop One would embed racial retribution in the form of reverse racism, critical race theory and diversity, equity and inclusion principles into the state Constitution, without most voters realizing its far-reaching effects.” Ms. Magazine, a feminist news magazine, triumphantly declares that Prop. 1 goes far beyond abortion rights. In its recent “Explainer,” originally published by The ERA Project at Columbia Law School, it lauds Prop. 1 for allowing “for a modern approach to equality that addresses the impacts of intersectional discrimination …. [and] will distinguish New York constitutional law from the ‘neutral’ approach to equality developed under the federal Constitution.” Abolishing Rights In 2022, during the debate in the New York Assembly over the approval for Prop. 1, Assemblymember Andy Goodell and Rebecca Seawright had an informative exchange that underscores the fact that the purpose of Prop.1 is more than an effort to protect New Yorkers’ ability to get an abortion on demand. Cam Macdonald summarizes the exchange perfectly in his Empire Center report: Assemblymember Andy Goodell asked the resolution’s sponsor, Rebecca Seawright, whether single-sex activities would violate the equal rights amendment’s prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. She answered that the amendment “follows the New York State Human Rights Law.” She also confirmed that the Human Rights Law already covered everything in the language of the proposed amendment. Yet the amendment is necessary, according to Seawright, to “embed [the Human Rights Law] in the Constitution.” Goodell then asked Seawright whether the amendment eliminates exceptions for religious groups like the Roman Catholic church to discriminate against women seeking abortions at Catholic hospitals. Her answer was no. But then Goodell pressed Seawright on religious exceptions for employer-provided health insurance covering abortions and contraceptives. Seawright answered, “So we’re not changing any of those laws; it would be a matter of litigation.” Prop. 1 Proponents According to the New York Times, the pro-Prop. 1 coalition includes the ballot issue committee, New Yorkers for Equal Rights, New York Civil Liberties Union, New York Immigration Coalition, 1199 S.E.I.U. and the N.A.A.C.P. Proponents of the amendment are flush with cash. Former U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, now the president of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women, set a $20 million fundraising goal in support of Prop. 1. Gov. Hochul plans to spend more than $1 million from the state Democratic Party. Prop. 1 cosponsor State Sen. Liz Krueger donated $5,000. According to Ballotpedia, New Yorkers for Equal Rights has received over $5 million in 2024, with most of it coming from the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. On the other side, the Coalition to Protect Kids–New York has raised a fraction of that, $369,178.26, to defeat the amendment. If Prop. 1 is successful in New York, then the same language could find its way on to other state ballots across the country — even the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, cosponsor Assemblywoman Rebecca A. Seawright, was “[i]nspired to renew the movement for the federal Equal Rights Amendment to guarantee that our rights are anchored in our state and U.S. constitutions.” If this happens it will be even worse than the “ERA” defeated by Phyllis Schlafly.   RELATED: Abortions Went Up After Dobbs Harris and ABC Lied About Late-Term Abortions Planned Parenthood Mobile Clinic Provides Abortions and Vasectomies at DNC The post New York’s Devious and Dangerous Prop. 1 appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

WASHINGTON — Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón is the sort of progressive prosecutor who thinks it is his job to curb mass incarceration. Last week, the L.A. D.A. announced he is reviewing the sentencing of Lyle and Erik Menendez, who were convicted for the savage shotgun killing of their parents in 1989 and sentenced to life without parole. The brothers are the subject of a Netflix series, Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story, and a Netflix documentary, The Menendez Brothers. Gascón told Newsweek his office is reviewing the case because of a 1988 letter that Erik Menendez wrote to a cousin about alleged sexual abuse by his father and a statement from a former Menudo band member who alleged Jose Menendez sexually assaulted him. Be it noted, Lyle and Erik Menendez were 21 and 18 at the time they slaughtered their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez. The sons were adults who could have walked away from their wealthy lifestyle in Beverly Hills but instead chose to turn two shotguns on their father, who sexually abused them, they said, as well as their mother, using her substance abuse in the face of her husband’s affairs as a reason to put her “out of her misery.” Then they went on a spending spree — loading up with high-end watches, clothing, and cars. The murders were premeditated. They were extremely violent. The brothers killed their parents. So why would the headline-seeking Gascón revisit the sentence? California has no shortage of gullible journalists and politicians who want to believe that convicted killers, even parricides, are underdogs — though the brothers admitted they killed their unarmed parents, as Jose and Kitty Menendez were watching TV. Some family members have pushed for the brothers’ release — as the pair, now in their 50s, have been in prison for decades after enduring a childhood of abuse by their father. In the Netflix documentary, prosecutor Pamela Bozanich confirmed that she asked around about Jose Menendez, and she couldn’t find a single person who said anything nice about him except for his secretary. Bozanich called the father a monster whose death presented “an actual plus for mankind.” “The only reason I’m doing this after 33 years is that this poor woman who gave birth to both of them was treated like a doormat by her husband and her sons and she was slaughtered like a wild animal inside of her own home,” she said of her decision to talk about the case. Bozanich also believes that there would be no push to reconsider the case if not for TikTok, which has elevated the inmates’ celebrity status. There’s a political angle to the Menendez brothers’ saga as well. Gascón’s career in elective office took off after Kamala Harris won the California attorney general’s race in 2010 and then-Mayor Gavin Newsom named him to succeed her as San Francisco DA. The careers of the two prosecutors from San Francisco have been intertwined for years. In February 2020, Harris and other progressive Democrats endorsed Gascón as he ran for Los Angeles district attorney. That 2020 endorsement was not a pro forma statement of support; Harris got behind Gascón during a contested primary in which he challenged incumbent Democrat D.A. Jackie Lacey. Then-U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris said, “George Gascón is a proven leader of national significance when it comes to reforming our criminal justice system. As DA of San Francisco, George led fights to reform the Three Strikes Law, decrease the state prison population and get people convicted of nonviolent offenses greater opportunities to get their lives back on track. As D.A. of L.A. County, I know George Gascón will work every day to keep our communities safe and demand real accountability from our justice system and real justice for every Angeleno.” In short, Harris, who wants voters to believe she was a hard-nosed prosecutor, endorsed Gascón because he weakened California law on repeat offenders and sent fewer criminals to prison. But now, according to a recent Los Angeles Times/UC Berkeley poll, the incumbent DA has garnered 21 percent support, 30 points behind lead challenger Nathan Hochman. Those politics aren’t going to help Harris in 2024. So this go-round, she has not endorsed Gascón. Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post There’s a 2024 Angle to the Menendez Brothers Saga appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from DollarVigilante: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

???? Israel has begun attacks on Iran. pic.twitter.com/M1JhSKr5rn — Censored Men (@CensoredMen) October 25, 2024

Election Bombshell! The Deep State Knows Trump Is Going To Win In A Huge Landslide And Is Now Preparing To Trigger MASSIVE Civil Unrest! This Is An Absolute Must-Watch/Share LIVE Friday Edition Of The #AlexJonesShow! https://t.co/ZfpMLY8c8C — Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) October 25, 2024

WW3 ALERT! ???⚠️⚠️⚠️ Israel has officially started its attack on Iran! 5 MASSIVE explosions seen near Imam Khomeini International Airport in the capital city of Tehran. Israel says that the attack is meant to be a message of “deterrence” but I can see this boiling over… pic.twitter.com/PqAILQ9Eii — The Patriot Voice (@TPV_John) October 25, 2024

by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star: Well folks I am now in the “clean up phase” of the hot water heater leak-removal-replacement-inspection nightmare.  By clean up I’m going through a bunch of stuff I had stored in the room where the heater was, throwing some out, and trying to “consolidate” things a bit before […]

Hedge fund manager and macro-economic expert Hugh Hendry has alerted the banking system and the American economy as a whole. Article by Belle Carter, republished with permission from Naturalnews.com “President Joe Biden’s administration may be looking at ways to lock down your checking account, literally ban withdrawals from the banking system,” he warned. In a new interview on Bloomberg Markets, Hugh Hendry said that mass panic and capital flight away from the United States’ banking sector is entirely justified. He added that a further decline in the M2 money supply could convince the U.S. government to step in and prevent citizens from taking their capital out of the banking system. M2 is a measure of the money supply that includes cash, checking deposits and other deposits readily convertible to cash. “Sometimes it’s kind of relevant to panic. I would recommend you panic… You’ve seen the biggest waterfall decline in M2 right now,” said Hendry. “M2 is deposits, not loans. That’s the deposits fleeing the system and going into money market funds.” He pointed out how the administration has been driving the economy to this situation. Hendry added that the bureaucrats Biden has installed in the federal government have already moved to force Americans to buy electric cars, limited the kinds of appliances they can buy, censored the questions they can raise about fair elections and much more. “Now the next step could be your bank account,” the economics guru said. “This could reach a crescendo where the Treasury and the Fed may have to come in and actually restrict your right as a U.S. citizen to pull money out of the U.S. banking sector.” He also explained that capital flight from banks is not solely about fears of whether the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will insure deposits above $250,000, and a blanket guarantee on deposits would not solve the problem. According to Hendry, there is capital flight, deposit flight from the banking sector seeking yield. He said he is scared that as in 1934 the Federal Reserve Act confiscated gold from U.S. citizens. And so, he advised that when it comes to where Americans can place their capital amid the uncertainty, his go-to are U.S. Treasuries and potentially Bitcoin. “It’s time to own the most reviled security in the universe, the ultra-long Treasuries. I know you all think we’ve got an inflation problem. It was a supply shock, and a supply shock needs the manifestation of more and more bank printing of loans to propel it into the future. We’re getting the opposite. The ultra longs are trading two to three standard deviations below the ETF,” he said. Even former President Donald Trump has long been warning that once people put their money in banks, the money is no longer theirs and the system will find a way to not give it back. “Our currency is crashing and will soon no longer be the world standard,” Trump said. (Related: 1.8M fraudulent transactions led banks to close accounts of innocent customers without warning or explanation.) Shock-proof assets Treasuries are considered more reliable and safer assets since the government backs them and they come with a fixed interest rate for the life of the bond. Bitcoin is a potential winner as well, with Hendry predicting it could trade three or four times higher in the next five years. “There is no other asset class that I could make that determination,” he said. An article on Moneywise suggested two more shock-proof assets. First is real estate, which has long been an excellent hedge against inflation and it could be a safe bet when other financial assets face turmoil. While you could become a landlord and rent out a spare room for some passive income, there are other ways to invest in real estate that don’t come with the hassles of hosting. For example, real estate investment trusts own various properties such as apartment buildings, shopping centers and cell towers, and many are publicly traded on the stock exchange. Also, crowdfunding platforms, which allow investors to own a percentage of physical real estate. Another one is the precious metal, gold. There are several ways for you to bank on gold while cash could veer out of reach. The first tried-and-true method is to just buy solid gold, whether that’s in jewelry, bars or coins. Just keep in mind that prices can be notoriously difficult to predict, and you’ll also need to pay extra fees if you’re keeping your gold with a special custodian or broker. Your next option is to buy gold mining stocks or invest in gold ETFs through an investing app or broker. Watch the video below that talks about an incoming banking crisis. This video is from Thrivetime Show channel on Brighteon.com. More related stories: CASHLESS DOWN UNDER: Australia gears up for CBDC rollout, with major banks banning OTC cash withdrawals. Iraq to BAN cash withdrawals and transactions in U.S. dollars starting next year. NatWest bank issues further de-banking measures with new cash limits, prompting criticism from de-banked Nigel Farage. Sources include: DailyHodl.com 100PercentFedUp.com Finance.Yahoo.com Brighteon.com RELATED REPORTS: Thousands DENIED Access To Bank Withdrawals In Australia REPORT: RBC Bank In Canada REFUSES To Allow Customer To Withdraw His Own Funds! WARNING: U.S. Government May Freeze American Bank Withdrawals Noah here and I'm going to keep shouting these warning from the rooftop until everyone hears them. Like a watchman on the wall. Why? Because it's very possible your money may not be safe. Where's the safest place to put your money? For decades, we were raised and taught the answer to that question was "in a bank". And for decades that answer was correct. But what if one day the bank just says -- sorry!  It's not your money anymore!  -- and refuses to let you take it out? That's not just random speculation by me, many experts are warning that's coming. In fact, it already has a name:  "bail-ins". Check this out: U.S. may freeze bank withdrawals as currency fear rises, expert warns https://t.co/HeIqYBJIGK — ?ℕ ? (@Ianbins) May 14, 2023 And from Stew Peters: ALERT: US Government May Freeze American Bank Withdrawals As Currency Panic and Capital Flight Mounts - Hedge Fund Manager Hugh Hendry This will be catastrophic. pic.twitter.com/IPjWj4SzX6 — Stew Peters (@realstewpeters) May 8, 2023 Here's more, from The Daily HODL: In a new interview on Bloomberg Markets, Hendry says mass panic and capital flight away from the US banking sector is entirely justified. Hendry says a further decline in the M2 money supply, which in part tracks money in liquid checking accounts, could convince the US government to step in and prevent citizens from taking their capital out of the banking system. “Sometimes it’s kind of relevant to panic. I would recommend you panic… You’ve seen the biggest waterfall decline in M2 right now. M2 is deposits, not loans. That’s the deposits fleeing the system and going into money market funds. That could reach a crescendo where the Treasury and the Fed may have to come in and actually restrict your right as a US citizen to pull money out of the US banking sector.” Hendry says capital flight from US banks is not solely about fears on whether the FDIC will insure deposits above $250,000, and a blanket guarantee on deposits would not solve the problem. “There is capital flight, deposit flight from the banking sector seeking yield. I fear that, I don’t say this lightly, but in 1934 the Federal Reserve Act confiscated gold from US citizens. We’re at the point where the Fed and Treasury officials I’m sure are having to consider a gate a lock on US bank deposits.” You can watch that full video here: But it's not just these people warning you... How about President Trump himself? That's right, check this out: TRUMP: "Our Currency Is Crashing And Will Soon No Longer Be The World Standard..." President Trump said something VERY interesting in his historic speech last night. Many very interesting things actually. Historic speech. But one thing really jumped out to me because we've been covering it here a lot. And that is the crash of the U.S. Dollar. Bo Polny was one of the very first people to ever talk about this, telling me on my show over 2 years ago that it would happen. Back then people laughed. Said Bo was crazy. And now? Now you have President Donald John Trump telling you point blank. Wow. Watch this: Trump:"Our currency is crashing and will soon no longer be the world standard...If you took the five worst Presidents in the history of the United States and added them up they would not have the amount of destruction Joe Biden has done...These radical left lunatics want to… pic.twitter.com/X20GSBoF1c — DailyNoah.com (@DailyNoahNews) April 5, 2023 More here: As always, I never like to just leave you with a problem... Leave you feeling helpless... Nah, that's not what we do here. I like to give you solutions! And on that note I have just one question for you:  "Got Gold?" Got God's money? Might be wise. Read this: Gold Is About To Become "Unobtainium"? In the history of the world, it usually hasn't been a bad idea to secure some of your assets in "God's money" a/k/a Gold. And boy do I have a big update for you on that. Here are two of the best, Steve Quayle and Greg Hunter. I always love listening to these two chat, even though they got a little chippy at the end, with Quayle chipping back "Did you not just hear me?" That's ok, stress and tensions running high. But there was a LOT in this one and I will try to summarize a couple main points. First, Quayle points out that China has been absolutely DUMPING U.S. Treasuries in recent months, and then accelerating the sales this week. According to Quayle, they dumped so much this week they sold them for 15 cents on the dollar just to get out. As Bo Polny keeps warning us, a failure of the U.S. Dollar (USD) $ is coming and this is how you get a failure. When the second largest holder of U.S. Treasuries rage quits the market and dumps them at fire sale. Take a look at this: China cuts US Treasury holdings to lowest level since global financial crisis. And the sales are accelerating. At the same time China is increasing its gold reserves. #gold pic.twitter.com/5JwJSkfRJg — Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) March 25, 2023 Ok, so to everyone who just tuned out when I started talking about Treasuries, let me explain to you why this matters. DISCLAIMER: no, I am not a Financial Advisor and I'm definitely not YOUR Financial Advisor.  But I am a reporter and I report it like I see it.  Fair and honest. Because the US Dollar is likely going down hard.... But that also means Gold is likely about to Moonshot. Check this out: Gold's new 8-Year Cycle looks to be confirmed now. Leaving behind one hell of a sexy looking chart. The narrative for a big bull market is certainly there. pic.twitter.com/PFv4TJ5KVS — Bob Loukas (@BobLoukas) March 25, 2023 I think you should get out of the banking system now. Shift your deposits into Gold, Silver or Crypto. You can't trust your Bank or the Govt. When the derivatives bubble pops no Govt will be able to print enough money to guarantee all deposits without causing hyperinflation. — Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) March 25, 2023 The Hierarchy Of Money And The Case For $8,000 Gold https://t.co/52Ci27pQxZ — zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 24, 2023 As for that last one, that would be going from $2,000/oz to $8,000/oz. We call that a 4x move, or a 400% gain. Wow. You can watch the full interview here on Rumble: If you already have gold, that's great! For everyone else....keep reading: A Faith-Driven, Conservative Precious Metals Company You Can Use With Your IRA! For the last year, central banks across the globe have been buying up as much gold (and often silver) as they can acquire without raising alarm bells. Now, we see why. The recent bank runs and ongoing collapse of the U.S. banking system was anticipated by the "elites" and the central bankers who run things behind the scenes. They saw it coming and knew the best way to protect their assets was through physical precious metals. If you've been waiting for me to bring you a solution about what YOU can do to protect yourself and you're family, I'm happy to introduce you to something I absolutely love! Precious metals. I just talked about precious metals this week with Bo Polny and now I'm bringing you a solution that you can utilize right away if you're so inclined... A faith-driven, conservative precious metals company is currently helping Americans tap into the rising precious metals market through self-directed IRAs backed by physical precious metals. And while this service is not unique to Genesis, their adherence to Biblical stewardship of money makes them singularly qualified to receive a sponsored recommendation from this site. Unlike most companies offering similar services, Genesis deals only with physical precious metals. They do not offer "virtual" or "paper" gold or silver. With Genesis and their depositories, customers can see and touch the precious metals that back their retirement accounts. When it comes time to take distributions, Genesis customers can cash in some or all of their precious metals or have them delivered to their door. Central bankers aren't slowing down. In fact, nations like China and even U.S. states like Tennessee are quickly but quietly buying up gold to back their own treasuries. When the writing on the wall is this clear, it's understandable why these governments are moving quickly to get ahead of any potential economic catastrophes in store. Working with Genesis is the best way our readers can explore the physical precious metals market through self-directed IRAs. It benefits us as well when our readers work with this America-First company. Visit genesiswlt.com or call 866-292-0443 today. Don't wait too long, we might have more bank failures right around the corner. You know what has NEVER "failed"? Gold.  Precious metals.  Indestructible. There's a reason they call it "God's money". Watch this for more: Stay safe!